tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC January 5, 2019 12:00am-1:00am PST
the crazy part is all of it violates federal law. but let it also be said, the former speaker of the house knows a growth industry when he sees one. tonight on "all in". >> when your son looks at you and says, mama, look, you won, bullies don't win. >> impeachment talk took center stage. >> i said, baby, they don't because we're going to go in there and we're going to impeach the [ bleep ]. >> tonight the leadership responds and why even the president has impeachment on his mind. >> i said, why don't you use this for impeachment? and nancy said we're not looking to impeach you. >> then. >> if we have to stay out for a very long period of time, we're going to do that. >> as the president promises a shutdown that could last year,
how do you negotiate with this? >> they drive out into the desert and they come in, they make a left turn, usually it's a left, not a right. >> plus, incredible new details about the undocumented workers hired at trump's golf course. >> as republican attacks keep coming, you alexandria ocasio-cortez keeps on dancing. when "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes, well, it only took about 12 hours of democratic control of the house for impeachment to become the most talked about issue in washington. that's due in part to rashida talib who became the first muslim woman ever to serve in congress when she was sworn in yesterday. back in 2016 she disrupted a trump -- in detroit only to be dragged out of the hall along with other protesters.
she later explained that a president who is seeking to ban muslims had led her sons to question their place in their own country. and now her place is in congress. last night, after her son's dabbed on the house floor, talib invoked them again, and this time the whole nation took notice. >> when your son looks at you and says, mama, look, you won, bullies don't win, and i say, baby, they don't, because we're going to go in there and we're going to impeach the mother [ bleep ]. >> after the videos of her comment went viral, talib quoted i will only speak to truth -- it kicked off an outpouring of comical outrage that has embraced and celebrated one of the most vulgar public figures in recent memory who responded with his characteristic lack of self-awareness. >> i think she dishonored herself and i think she dishonored her family. using language like that in front of her son and whoever
else was there, i thought that was a great dishonor to her and her family. >> so dishonorable, really? apparently language like that is only appropriate for locker rooms and billy bush. well, talib got the attention, and plenty of people are talking about impeachment. long time democratic representative brad sherman and al green introduced articles of impeachment against the president. bob bower, a resolutely sober minded and careful law professor and all around establishment figure if ever there was one published a piece yesterday headlined coming to terms with the impeachment process, the case for starting a formal inquiry. it's all the rage on the left, and even the president and gop seem very eager, weirdly, to talk impeachment. one group is not. the democratic leadership in the house, which, at least for now, is trying desperately to hold onto the impeachment reins as tightly as they can.
>> it's too early to talk about that intelligently. we have to follow the facts and get the facts and see where the facts lead. maybe that will lead to impeachment, maybe it won't. it's much too early. >> we even talked about that today. i said, why don't you use this for impeachment, and nancy said we're not looking to impeach you. >> you said it would be sad and divisive for the country to pursue impeachment. >> it will be. >> are you willing to rule it out? >> we have to see what happens with the mueller report. we shouldn't be impeaching for a political reason, and we shouldn't avoid impeachment for a political reason. so we'll just have to see how it comes. >> to help make sense of this internal divide within the coalition, i'm joined by michelle goldberg, op-ed columnist for the "new york times." it was interesting to watch the reaction today. there was pearl clutching for some folks, giving them ammunition. >> the reaction has made me feel like i'm going insane. i actually cannot believe that
this is a big deal, that this is scandalous, or offensive in any way. i mean, first of all, there are a lot of democrats who have called for impeachment, democrats who have introduced resolutions of impeachment, rashida talib wrote a very good kind of sober minded op-ed about all of the reasons why impeachment shouldn't wait. and i understand the arguments to the contrary, i understand why some democratic leaders want to hold off until we have the results of the mueller probe. but it is manifestly obvious that he deserves to be impeached and that a lot of democratic -- that a lot of democrats feel this way. are we actually shocked that she has used a curse word about the president of the united states, a curse word, by the way, that kanye west used in the oval office? that's right. >> and nobody pretended to care one way or the other about. i mean, it is so -- >> i forgot about that. >> it is blowing my mind.
all these people say, oh, this is so disrespectful. disrespectful to donald trump? >> here's -- part of the dynamic here, i was on capitol hill yesterday talking about it, this is palpable, there's this sense among a beltway crowd and analyst, and among the house leadership, and among republicans that, like, impeachment will backfire, it's overreach and it's bad and that will benefit donald trump in some boomerang fashion, is that weird conventional wisdom that's descended over washington? >> i think the problem that a lot of people have is that they kind of live with the past experience of impeachment with bill clinton, and i think this is a night and day experience. so obviously donald trump has done a lot of things that if some other president did there would be an impeachment process started already. on the other hand, i do think that the american people look at impeachment as through the lens of a criminal inquiry. and that's not -- that may not
be the right way to look at it constitutionally. but i do think that's how the public looks at it. and so i think a lot of the public is interested in waiting for mueller. now, that doesn't mean that talking about impeachment or even starting an inquiry around the president's gross misconduct should be stopped or we need to wait for that. i mean, people can walk and chew gum. there should be investigations flying about what seems to be illegal behavior on a regular basis. and we shouldn't poo-poo that. but i think that -- what's happening in the beltway is a little bit of a -- is a concern about the public thinking of impeachment as political. because, truly, we don't want impeachment to be seen as political. because mueller will -- may well have findings of criminal behavior and we need all political actors to look at those and take them seriously when it happens. >> i think you're right on both those scores, on the 1998 clinton hangover and on this
sort of idea of how the public perceives it. i want to just play what ra -- >> i know and have heard from many of my residents who keep up the night, rashida. they love that i'm real, and i am very much focused on getting the government back up and running but also making sure that it holds the president of the united states accountable. i very much hold dearly that i want to impeach this president. >> that's not -- >> why should she? again, i would point out yes, there's a lot of good reasons to wait for the mueller investigation. but as she points out in this very good op-ed she wrote in the detroit free press there are so many legal, not political, so many reasons to impeach trump because of his violations of the emoluments clause, because of his -- >> he was named in a federal
courthouse by a defendant as illegally instructing him to commit a felony. >> a felony that was kind of crucial to his own election. >> yes. >> right? i mean, he has committed crimes. he has obstructed justice. he has ordered the justice department to investigate his enemies. i mean, he kind of tweets something every other day that in and of itself would be an impeachable offense in a healthy society. there's a legitimate, i think, political debate about whether we should wait for the mueller investigation. but i don't think there's a legitimate debate about democrats about whether he has done things that plausibly merit impeachment. >> one thing that was interesting about this episode, and yesterday being on capitol hill is watching it was a generational divide around how democrats think about their role in the public sphere and who they're talking to, a little bit, and worries about being a defensive crowd. there's an interesting generational thing happening with new and younger members who i think just feel a little less -- a little less burdened or unbridled about how they're
going to sort of go about things rhetorically. >> i definitely think there's a generational divide. i also think, frankly, there are a lot of people, and this is a good thing, there are a lot of people who represent districts that are 80% progressive. >> good point, yes. >> and people want to impeach the president, and, you know, the full spectrum of the caucus has a lot of people who just won election in swing districts where they relied on republican votes. that is the beauty of the democratic majority, which is that it has a lot of people who represent, you know, liberals. and that's fantastic. they should have a voice. i mean, i think this is an important discussion for the congress to have. i also think, today, the democrats introduced sweeping legislation to reform political corruption in washington and that's as important a debate with the public as issues like impeachment, which are critically important issues as well. that's some of the frustration with the discussion.
but having said that, i definitely understand the need and desire and want to impeach donald trump. i definitely get that, believe me. >> neera and michelle, thank you both, have a great weekend. for more on how the impeachment process would unfold, i'm joined by elizabeth holtzman, and michael waldman. we were talking about the political dynamics. i want to talk about the legal and constitutional dynamics and the way they interrelate. lawrence tribe and josh match wrote this book, the power of impeachment, and josh chaffetz, saying it really does matter to not put the cart before the horse for the legitimacy of the process. it has to not be pre-ordained, the outcome. >> there has to be a case made to the public in a real tangible
visible dramatic way about what has gone wrong. this congress is one day old. we have not had a minute of public testimony from michael cohen, from donald trump jr., from the witnesses who can tell the story that maybe they told to mueller's grand jury. i do worry about the idea that this silent "g" man is going to deliver the facts. all the scandals that have made the history in the country there's been a real congressional investigation, they have power and they need to use it and that's what sets the stage for what might be a very legitimate impeachment. >> having gone through this yourself, not many people have done it, what do you think? >> well, i think, first of all, the statement that the leadership and many democrats, particularly democrats who have been around for a while are caught in the clinton impeachment process is correct.
people have to get past it. >> yes, i totally agree that that is on everyone's mind. >> it's not just that they have to get past it to go forwards, they have to go over it and backwards. because there is one impeachment that did work in the history of this country, and that was the impeachment against richard nixon. first of all, it was not divisive. in the end the american people overwhelmingly supported it. number two, most americans supported richard nixon when he was elected in 1972. >> by an overwhelming margin, in fact. >> overwhelming margin, i think he lost one state. not like donald trump. >> right. >> by the end they had to change their minds. they changed their minds. that was amazing. >> okay, but that's -- here's the question. >> and they did that because of the process that was fair. because, as michael said, the facts were brought publicly. and they understood the constitutional requirements. >> okay. but here's the question. is that do process and facts
matter in 2019 the way they mattered in 1974 and 1975? because there's a reason to believe they don't. the persuasion is impossible. that the hermetic ceiling of certain portions of the population are such, no matter how fair you are, no matter how damning the facts are, they can't penetrate the minds. >> you're not going to penetrate all people's minds. even when richard nixon resigned with a house judiciary committee unanimous -- we don't have to persuade all the americans, but you have to persuade a majority of the americans. that's not going to happen just by slogans and it's not going to happen because you don't like his policies. that's not the way it's going to work. >> and, remember, the day bill clinton was impeached in the gallup poll he was at 73%. >> they impeach him in the lame duck, they just lost. >> they lost seats because they were going to impeach him. the politics matters a lot. rudy giuliani, in his bizarro pretend lawyer phase says, oh, you can't prosecute a president for obstruction of justice for things that he can do, like
firing somebody. you certainly can't impeach a president for abuse of powers. that was one of the counts against richard nixon. the very kinds of things, the incredible reaching into the independent law enforcement violates people's sense of the constitution. it violates people's sense of right and wrong and they haven't yet heard it from the mouths of people who it blocked. >> that's critical. in watergate we did that. the senate committee did that. but just take one example, the dangling of the pardons. richard nixon dangled pardons in front of the burglars, that was an obstruction of justice. in fact, we used it on two counts of impeachment for nixon. we don't know all the facts about donald trump and the pardons. we know that he appears to have dangled them, but those facts have to be brought out. if you bring out those facts and they show that the president actually authorized it, was
involved in that and tried to stop the investigation by offering pardons, you show the american people the precedent with regard to nixon, you show them what the constitution says, then you begin to persuade the majority, the overwhelming majority to support. >> there is a link, i think, to what neera tanden mentioned, the introduction of sweeping reform legislation, public financing, automatic voter registration, ethics rules. people see this all as a response to the attack on our democracy. again, it's part of building a public case that has a broad consensus -- >> about democratic integrity, about fighting corruption. >> right. that not only makes things go smoother it builds a public argument for a different approach across a bunch of different areas. >> is there a timing question? part of what's strange here, to what michelle was saying, there's a bunch of stuff already out there.
put mueller aside. >> only some of it is out there. pardons is a good example. we have tantalizing tidbits about this. do you have enough of a case? in my opinion, not quite yet. so somebody wrote an article in the "times" saying that impeachment was inevitable. i don't know that impeachment is inevitable, but the prelude to impeachment has to be inevitable, full investigations and as michael said a lot of this has to be in the public eye because it's a public education function that has not been performed. >> donald trump finally as investigators he can't fire or threaten to fire, and there's a tv camera watching. let's see what happens. >> liz holtzman and michael waldman, thank you both. no end in sight for the trump shutdown, the president says he's prepared to keep the government closed, this is serious, he says this, for months or even a year. potential breaking points in two minutes. ♪ [ dog snoring ]
baxter. it's bedtime. peace of mind should never be out of reach. [ voice command beep ] xfinity home. xfinity home connects you to total home security you can control from anywhere on any device. and it protects you with 24/7 professional monitoring. i guess we're sleeping here tonight. xfinity home. simple. easy. awesome. call, go online or demo in an xfinity store today. the president is now threatening to keep the
government shut down for months or even years. he said it himself at his press conference this afternoon. >> mr. president, senator schumer came out and said that the meeting from his point of view, and speaker pelosi's was contentious which he also said you said in the meeting, him quoting you, that the shutdown could go on for months or even a year or longer. did you say that? >> i did, i did. absolutely i said that. i don't think it will, but i am prepared. remember, this shutdown is all over funding for a mythical and perhaps metaphor call, though not clear, border wall with mexico that trump repeatedly promised mexico would pay for so we wouldn't have to, and he offered no details today how mexico would pay for it. when he was specifically asked about it, he filibustered about the trade deal. the pressure is building, the partial shutdown of the irs means there could be delays sending out tax refunds across the country, going to become
very relevant very soon. experts warning the shutdown of the s.e.c. could hurt companies raising capital and conducting mergers. many who have been begun working without paychecks have begun calling in sick at major airports. the hundreds of thousands of people going without paychecks are some of the strongest supporters of his shutdown. >> many of those people, maybe most of those people that really have not been getting their money in at this moment, those people in many cases are the biggest fan of what we're doing. >> joining me now, democratic senator tina smith of minnesota. senator, after the -- after the meeting today with what schumer and pelosi had to say, what the president had to say, how long is this going to go? >> well, this is just such a waste. it needs to not go on any longer. the president needs to end this. what a waste this is for american taxpayers, the farmers waiting to get in touch with the department of agriculture, and
think about what it means for the federal employees who are public servants and can't work. and i'm very focused, along with some of my colleagues on the impact this has on contract federal workers, the almost invisible people who clean federal office buildings, work in the cafeterias. and they are contract workers and they have no way of getting paid and they are living paycheck to paycheck. just like most americans do. and it's just wrong that they're being used as a bargaining chip here. >> so but they are. the question is, what changes the equilibrium. what you have described has been true for two weeks by and large. what changes that when we've started to see news about tsa employees calling in sick because they are now on week three, so airports having a hard time staffing, irs tax refunds in the future, like is there some breaking point? >> well, i -- i mean, i think we are at a breaking point. when i hear the president say
this could go on for months or even years i'm thinking how clueless he is about the impact this is having on people's lives. the bill i'm working on with my colleagues in the senate would be working to address the impact of contract workers by making sure that they get the back pay that they deserve. but meanwhile what ought to happen is the bills that have pass it had house and the senate, they ought to be passed by the senate again and sent to the president and he should sign them into law. >> did you notice today, it was weird, senator mitch mcconnell, john cornyn, senator thune, none of them were in the white house rose garden, strange, last i checked there are two houses of congress and the ball is sort of in your court over there in the senate. >> well, that's exactly right. and the republicans are in charge of the senate. and they should be working with the president and the shutdown as quickly as they can. it's strange to me they sort of have stepped back from this and we all need to be stepping into this, and resolving this. and we know what to do.
we have a solution for getting us out of this mess. and i think that is so important for the president to understand that the people that are impacted most directly by this right now are -- they're not retreating behind their ten foot walls and living the life of riley. these are people that live, somebody said this woman who is a federal contract worker, 71 years old, a grandmother, she says if i don't get paid i don't pay my bills. the impact that that has on people's lives is immediate and a big deal. >> the president had this to say. he's been floating this idea. it's like many things the president floats, i don't know if it's real or not. but he has floated the idea of employing emergency powers to unilaterally order wall construction. take a listen to what he had to say. i'd like to get your reaction to it. >> have you considered using emergency powers to grant yourself authorities to build this wall without congressional approval?
and second -- >> yes, i have. >> on mexico -- you have? >> yes, i have, and i can do it if i want. >> so you don't need congressional approval to build the wall? >> we can call in national emergency because of the security of our country, absolutely, we can do it. i haven't done it. may do it. but we could call a national emergency and build it very quickly. and it's another way of doing it. >> is that true, to your mind? >> i think the president should be reading the constitution and watching the cable news less. he is claiming that he has unilateral powers to -- and he doesn't. this is a democracy. this is a republic. and i am distressed to hear him not understand what powers he has. >> i guess my final question, you're a senator from minnesota. >> yeah. >> and i guess, you know, what do your constituents -- what do you hear from constituents about how badly they want the border wall to be built down in texas, and arizona and new mexico? >> my constituents in minnesota understand something fundamental
which is that we need strong border security, comprehensive immigration reform, we need a path to citizenship for people who have been here working hard for a long time and we need an immigration system that works. the worried wall accomplishes none of that. they want to hear real solutions. they don't want political talk with political symbols. they are turned off by the discussions coming from the president right now. new details about the lengths one trump golf course went to hide the fact that they employed undocumented immigrants. that story next.
well, the president continues to shut down the government over his wall and rail against unauthorized immigrants as diseased criminals and terrorists, he's apparently happy to employ them at low pay on his various properties. "the new york times" has previously brought us stories of women who say they worked at the president's golf club without documents and with, crucially, the knowledge of management. now, we have an even more striking example, a woman named emma torrez saying she worked there without authorization, the club helped conceal her from the secret service when donald trump was a candidate in 2016. here with me now, annabelle romero, good to have you. so what did the club do to
conceal her from the secret service? >> emma worked there in 2016, what she says is that there was a day where someone walked into the kitchen, she was working as a housekeeper at first, transferred to the kitchen, she cooked for the president and someone asked her to put her name, her social security number on a piece of paper. obviously she knew this could possibly be a problem so she walked over to human resources and said, i think we have a problem, i'm undocumented, my friends are undocumented. you guys know this. what are we going to do about this? and they said, you're right, give me the names of the people undocumented, we're going to strike them from the list. >> you're saying the management at the president's own club, when he's on the campaign in 2016, and he's running on mexico sending rapistes, on the wall, on all of the ways in which immigrants are destroying the country, his management at his own club is actively concealing from the secret service the identities of the immigrants who worked there.
>> eight people claimed to have worked there in the past. one of my clients worked there in 2010. my client worked there recently until a couple of weeks ago. this is a pattern of practice. some of them claim that management helped them obtain these fraudulent documents in order to work there. these are serious crimes. that is why we have been calling for a federal investigation, a state investigation, and i think now with the secret service incident i think congressional investigation. >> i guess, to argue on the other side of this, i mean, are you an immigration lawyer? >> i am an immigration attorney. >> i don't think you would want the takeaway for people to be like we need to crack down on these businesses employing people like my clients, right? >> here's the problem. it is not illegal to work in the united states. but it is illegal, with an employer takes advantage of a person because they're undocumented. that's a crime.
and, look, we all know they're here. there are 12 million people who are here, they're good people. they're decent people. miriam jordan did something extraordinary for the "new york times." she got a woman to speak and come out of the shadows. she represents 12 million people in the same situation who are asking for some sort of help. >> this woman who came forward and said we are tired of the abuse, the insults, the way he talks about us, when he knows that we are helping him make money, d >> we have no evidence, but what i could tell you is that v they worked in his house, direct contact with the first lady. they are managed by a woman described by them as personal assistant to the first lady. that is why we're asking for a federal investigation and state authorities investigation to decide. >> what is it like to watch the president shut down the government over the wall, to go around talking about the grave security threat that is posed by undocumented immigrants, particularly those who are actively seeking asylum, trying
to turn themselves in, while it is the case that his own business apparently habitually is violating immigration law. >> that's the hypocrisy here. that's what these women have done is brave and courageous. i am shocked the news is not all over this. because quite clearly -- >> do core premise of his entire presidency. if there's one thing i'm going to do as president is shut this down and make it hard to come here without papers. >> in the case of one, she was cool for him, one was cleaning his toilet. >> you know, there's another irony here, part of the shutdown is shutting down the e verify system, which is the digital system used to essentially try to prevent companies from hiring folks who are undocumented. >> so in new jersey it is not mandatory, but immigration courts are also shut down. i have not -- my clients have not been able to appear in front of an immigration judge. there are 750,000 people right
now in removal proceedings who are not going to court. so you cannot remove them from the united states while the government is shut down. >> wait. so what you're saying is, the government shut down. punitively over border security and the construction of the wall. the shutdown means that you actually cannot issue an order of removal. >> correct. >> for an unauthorized immigrant who's been found to violate the law. >> yes. and that includes criminal aliens. so on monday, there is no immigration court all over the country. and we're just sitting here waiting. >> how long do you think that can go on? >> as long as the shutdown is. >> what is it doing to the system? >> it's really a problem. it really is. because when you think about it, 750,000 people in removal proceedings. now, there are 12 million undocumented immigrants in the united states. we all know it is impossible, virtually impossible to remove them. that's why i think republicans and democrats should sit down and talk about what is the real solution here? >> what would it mean if the president knew, what would it
mean if he or his advisers or his family knew they were actively hiring folks who were not documented. >> it is a federal crime to knowingly hire undocumented immigrants. >> anibel romero, thank you for your time. the president's desperate grab for attention. how to make sense of anything he says. tonight's thing one, thing two starts next. ?
thing one tonight, it has been quite a thing indeed to watch how all the boys in the gop are behaving around the new girl on campus. alexandria ocasio-cortez, they are obsessed with her outfits, too nice for an advocate for the working class to wear, a photo of her taken about her jacket and coat. mocked in right wing circles saying she couldn't afford to rent an apartment in washington until she started receiving her salary. and then yesterday the first day of the new congress, when she stood up and voted for nancy pelosi as speaker a bunch of those boys on the republican side booed at the sight of her. >> ocasio-cortez. >> nancy pelosi. >> pelosi. olson. >> you can see her mouthing exaggerated sorry, guys there, and later in the day she clapped back writing over 200 members
congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez is living rent free in the minds of my conservatives. when an old video of her as a college student -- some lost their minds. oh, my god, she's dancing, she is dancing, the silly video made by a group of student ambassadors at boston university, showed it at a hockey game that season and duringor generaltation. they were playing of mauj to the classic '80s movie the breakfast club doing the famous dance moves from the famous scene in that movie. this was supposed to an attack on the congresswoman. the twitter account that published the clip wrote, here the america's know it all acting like the clueless nit wit she
is. right ask left had a different reaction. charlotte wrote, i keep watching the dancing video, can't find the problem. she's having fun, has friends, likes music. it's hard for me to figure out why she would feel embarrassed about videos of her having a good time andens da dancing in high school, when paul ryan took these while running for vice president. i hear the gop thinks women dancing are scandalous, wait till they find out congresswomen dance too. ♪
since literally if first day of his campaign donald trump has been smearing undocumented immigrants as criminals and terrorists. since becoming president he has marshalled the authority and wait of the federal government to continue to slander immigrants. the department of justice, under jeff sessions, along the department of homeland security released a report attempting to tie immigrants to terrorism by making the case that foreign terrorists were essentially invading the country. it contained a whole variety of official statistics that close observers quickly pointed out were either wildly misleading or downright bogus. for instance, the department of justice asserted between 2003 and 2009 immigrants were convicted of 69,929 sex
offenses, which according to the report in most instances constitutes gender based violence against women. except that wasn't true at all. "the washington post" points out that the nearly 70,000 offenses spanned a period from 1955 to 2010. 55 years, not six. again, not six years like they claimed, 55 years. oh, and also, the data was arrests, not convictions. there's a very big difference. the report also listed 402 foreign born individuals convicted of terrorism related offenses, but what the report did not mention is that about a hundred of them had only come to the u.s. because they had been extradited here to face trial. those are not immigrants. so shocking was this blatantly false propaganda that several government watchdog and civil liberty groups in may sued the two agencies seeking a retraction under the little known information quality act. the doj refused to issue an official correction but it is
now saying in future reports the department can strive to minimize the potential for misinterpretation. oh, well, thanks, i guess. but here's the thing, using official government entities to deceive and mislead and to slander has become so common place and has so infollowing the accidented the brain of the president and his allies that slanderous statistics keep roaming the earth, like this one from this morning. >> this isn't just about stopping people from coming across. it's about stopping terrorists from coming across. it's about stopping drugs from flowing across the border of our country. last year alone, there were nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists that cbp picked up that came across our southern border. >> okay. think about that manifestly and obviously fake statistic for a second. do you think that even sounds in the ballpark of right? just, you know, nearly 4,000 terrorists apprehended at the southern border we didn't know about? of course not. the data was provided to the department of homeland security,
and apparently refers to suspected terrorists that were prevented from traveling to the u.s. from across the globe, all of the countries in this great blue earth of ours, mainly at airports. that hasn't stopped trump tv, the secretary of homeland security and the house minority whip from parroting that statistic. and how long until it's coming out of the president's mouth? one thing we know is that no bigoted fake fact is ever very far from permanently embedding itself into the president's brain. that's how his mind seems to work. something that's been on disturbing display this week, we're going to talk about that next.
they want to be able to see through it. you can't really see through a concrete wall. they want to be able to see whose on the other side of the wall. they want to be able to see through the wall. a see-through wall made out of steel is far stronger than a concrete wall. >> nothing's stronger than see-through steel, i guess?
for the second time this week, the president spoke at length and extemporaneously. and the thing about when he does that, he makes absolutely no sense. setting aside the lies and the demagoguery, you just cannot follow what the president's saying. so here's how i've come to understand the way his brain functions. it's like a heavily polluted stream with little bits of detritus that other people have thrown in there or some adviser whispering in his ear. and when the president talks, you can watch these little bits of flotsam and jetsam floating by. see if you can spot any for yourselves. >> they get off the road and they drive out into the desert and they come in, they make a left turn. usually it's a left, not a right. these coyotes and these human traffickers, they make a right turn before they get to the port of entry, they go as far as the wall is or as far as the barricade is. and then they make a left. welcome to the united states.
now what they'll do, if we have the protection and we have strong ports of entry with this incredible drug-finding equipment, i don't know what they're going to do, because they're not coming in past the steel gates or the steel wallace or the concrete walls demanding on what's happening. so when they make that turn, and now all of the sudden they can't go any further, and they have to go back. >> if someone if your workplace or your family started talking like, that you would probably be kind of worried, but somehow we've all come to accept it from the most powerful man in the world. for more on the president's broken brain, i'm joined by msnbc political analyst zerlina maxwell and msnbc contributor sam seder, host of "the majority report." am i wrong? i watched all 90 minutes of the cabinet meeting. i watched the bulk of this
today, and i literally can't follow big parts of it. >> no, you're not wrong, chris. this has been happening for the past three years. i don't know if it was because i was on the campaign in 2016. while you're working on a campaign, you can't always watch everything the president is saying live or candidate then is saying live. so you're left reading transcripts. i'm telling you, chris, when you read the transcripts of what president trump is saying, it makes no sense. i have felt for the past three years that he has been completely incoherent. and the battle that we normally see in politics between republicans and democrats is really been a three-year battle between donald trump and reality. and he is not living in the same objective reality as the rest of us, and that is concerning when you're dealing with serious public policy. while it's humorous, it's also serious and it could be dangerous. >> it just doesn't scan. it needs to be edited. it literally does not scan. but to zerlina's point, there are also tangible consequences. right now ostensibly the government is shut down over a
wall although it's not a wall, it's border security, but it's not concrete, it's steel. there is no coherence inside his mind. we don't know what the government's shut down over. >> well, yeah. no, look, i think, and again, there is really no way to know for sure. he -- you know, there has been this pattern with the wall. early on there was transcripts released about his conversation with the last president of mexico saying like just say you're going to pay for the wall. >> right. i remember that. that's right. >> the wall is some talisman for him. i'm not -- i don't know what's going on with the president. i've come across people who talk like that. usually they're heavily medicated. i have no idea what's going on with the president, but the wall is stuck in his head. he is convinced his audience -- >> yes. >> -- wants a wall. it's almost like he is trying to negotiate with the twitter
followers. >> that's right. >> you know, it's a wall. there is really no difference between concrete and steel and a fence and maybe these other things. there is some process going on in his mind that he thinks it's working in some fashion. i don't know that it is. >> that is right. but the thing you said is what strikes me all the time. he's stuck in his head. one of the things a president does more than any other thing they do is have to process a lot of information. >> right. >> and there are incredible processes put in place to get information to the most important decision maker in the federal government and make sure that information is vetted and he makes decision or she makes decisions based on it. and that's the thing. the information in that guy's head, lord knows where it comes from. a thing is said to him somewhere and it is stuck in there. >> he only pays half attention. so he only gets half of the information correct. that's why he says crazy things about andrew jackson, for example. i think that the bottom line is you need to vet the information getting to the president, not
because you don't want people placing things on his desk like omarosa was placing breitbart articles and other kinds of things, you need the information to be vetted because like nancy pelosi said, you need to operate from the same set of facts. >> right. >> when you're dealing with public policy. so the big issue i think that we've been dealing with from the beginning is that he is not living on the same planet. he is not living in the reality where you have a certain set of facts and then we can work through the details. we're talking and trying to negotiate with somebody who is literally living in an alternate reality where there are terrorist flooding over the border, where there are folks i guess throwing drugs over the wall. >> turning left and then right. >> hitting people on the head. sometimes it's funny, but on the other hand, it's not because we've shut down the government over this alternate reality. >> to the point of that, rachel did this amazing piece about this last night. he said this thing about the russians invading afghanistan
the other day, just busted out the cabinet meeting, which i want to play. take a listen. >> the reason russia was in afghanistan was because terrorists were going into russia. they were right to be there. the problem is it was a tough fight, and literally, they went bankrupt. they went into being cold russia again as opposed to the soviet union. >> okay. you want to talk about an esoteric view that is not widely shared across the spectrum globally, the soviet union was right to invade afghanistan because terrorists were incurring. where did he get that? >> i don't know. it could have been anybody, anybody around him that he just heard it because i don't think he's actually going out and trying to find out these answers. >> that's the point. that's the point. if you get to him and you put something in his head, it will stay there. >> and the amazing thing too, he's sitting in a room with presumably, right, everyone in that room is an expert. >> the people. >> theoretically.
>> yes. >> on sort of these broad questions of geopolitical history. >> yeah. >> and he is telling them as if he's describing it to a 5-year-old. like literally, it turned from russia, the soviet union into russia. they get it. they know this stuff. and it's unclear who he thinks he's explaining it to. it's almost as if he's trying to express look, see? i wrote my name by myself. i'm just relating this to my own 6-year-old. >> this is the thing we all now deal with this level of cognition and analysis and logical sequencing. it's so funny, zerlina, because when you see another republican, even lindsey graham. when lindsey graham comes away and he makes an argument that the president is making, i don't agree with that argument or i think it's a bad argument or a little logically duplicitous, but it's a coherent set of sentences strung together. you always wake up to the fact of what exactly is going on when you watch another politician ride in to make an argument on
behalf of trump. zerlina maxwell, and sam seder, thank you so much for joining me. all right that is "all in" this evening. this is a tragedy on top of a tragedy now. >> it happened so quickly. their parents in the backyard spa. their mom in trouble. >> my dad just panicked. >> a sudden slip. a fatal fall. >> you're losing your mother. you're watching her go right in front of you. >> someone else was watching her too. a curious neighbor just moments before witnessed something >> it was scary. the look on his face was almost undescribable. >> what had she seen? was this drowning really an accident? >> she's got a huge gash on her head.